Writing about aerospace and electronic systems, particularly with defense applications. Areas of interest include radar, sonar, space, satellites, unmanned plaforms, hypersonic platforms, and artificial intelligence.
Alliance Commander
Expresses Urgency as Forces Test Drones, Robots in Portuguese Waters
While China and Russia Accelerate Their Own Development
NATO is accelerating efforts to
integrate cutting-edge military technologies into its naval operations,
but alliance leadership warns that the pace of innovation may not be
fast enough to maintain a decisive advantage over adversaries like
Russia and China, both of whom are rapidly advancing their own military
artificial intelligence and autonomous systems programs.
Commodore Arjen Warnaar, the
Dutch commander of Standing NATO Maritime Group 1, expressed concern
about the speed of technological advancement, stating that NATO is not
developing fast enough and emphasizing the need to maintain the largest
possible technological edge over adversaries.
Testing Ground for Innovation
Earlier this month, NATO forces
conducted exercises off the coast of Portugal—REPMUS (Robotic
Experimentation and Prototyping with Maritime Unmanned Systems) and
Dynamic Messenger 2025—designed to provide allies with opportunities to
test drones, robots, and other emerging technologies. The exercises
focused on multiple operational areas, including protection of critical
undersea infrastructure, naval mine warfare, intelligence and
surveillance operations, integrated command and control, and defense
against air and sea drones.
The Portuguese exercises
represent just one component of a comprehensive NATO strategy to
maintain technological superiority. In June 2025, NATO Defence Ministers
endorsed a new Science and Technology Strategy that positions science
and technology as a central pillar for preserving NATO's military and
technological edge, stressing the importance of enabling the Alliance to
outperform strategic competitors in adopting emerging technologies. NATO - News: NATO releases new Science & Technology Strategy, 05-Jun.-2025
At
the 2025 NATO Summit in The Hague, Allied Leaders endorsed NATO's Rapid
Adoption Action Plan, which aims to significantly accelerate the pace
at which the Alliance adopts new technological products and integrates
them into Allied armed forces within a maximum of 24 months. NATO - Topic: Emerging and disruptive technologies
The
Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic (DIANA), working
with over 200 accelerator sites and test centers across the Alliance,
announced in December 2024 that over 70 companies would join its 2025
accelerator program, each receiving €100,000 in funding to develop deep
technology solutions for pressing security challenges. NATONATO
The Spiral Development Imperative
Warnaar emphasized the
importance of "spiral development"—a continuous process of innovation
and adaptation—describing it as fundamental to military technological
progress and noting that any effective system will eventually be
countered, making constant development essential.
The Ukraine conflict has
provided a stark illustration of this dynamic. Ukraine developed naval
drones to attack Russian warships in the Black Sea, prompting Moscow to
deploy more patrol aircraft for aerial monitoring. Kyiv then adapted by
equipping its naval drones with surface-to-air missiles, which have
successfully engaged Russian aircraft.
Warnaar characterized Ukraine's
spiral development process as "existentially important" and
representing the difference between winning and losing, emphasizing that
NATO must avoid finding itself in similar circumstances.
Ukrainian defense technology
companies are focusing on domestic missile production, drone swarms, and
AI technologies in 2025, with Ukraine planning to produce up to 5
million drones annually. The country has established itself as a global
defense tech hub, with rapid battlefield testing driving innovation
cycles from years to weeks. Atlantic Council
Warnaar's assessment raises a
fundamental challenge in military technology development: defining what
constitutes adequate speed and capability. His assertion that "it's
never fast enough" reflects the paradoxical nature of military
technological competition.
The commander's emphasis on
making the technological edge "as big as possible" suggests that NATO
operates without a defined threshold for sufficiency. This approach
reflects the reality articulated in what Warnaar calls "the first law of
military technological development"—that any effective system will be
countered in due time.
This philosophy presents both
strategic and practical dilemmas for NATO. Without clear benchmarks for
"fast enough" or "good enough," alliance members face the challenge of
allocating resources in an environment where technological superiority
is measured not by absolute capabilities but by relative advantage over
adversaries whose own development programs remain partially opaque.
The Ukraine experience
demonstrates that "good enough" may be better defined by adaptability
and innovation speed rather than initial capability levels. Ukrainian
naval drones were not necessarily superior to Russian countermeasures in
absolute terms, but Ukraine's ability to rapidly iterate and deploy
counter-countermeasures proved decisive. This suggests that NATO's
adequacy may depend less on achieving a specific technological milestone
and more on institutionalizing rapid development and deployment cycles
that can outpace adversary adaptation.
The absence of a defined "fast
enough" standard also reflects the competitive nature of the challenge.
Since Russia and China are simultaneously developing their own
capabilities, NATO's required speed is inherently relative and
continuously recalibrating.
The Adversary Threat: China and Russia Accelerating
Warnaar acknowledged that
Russians and Chinese forces are pursuing their own technological
development programs, stressing the imperative that NATO's development
must proceed faster than its competitors'.
China's Military AI Ambitions
China has set a goal to
"accelerate the integrated development of mechanization,
informatization, and intelligentization" by 2027, aiming to integrate
artificial intelligence, quantum computing, big data, and other emerging
technologies into its joint force. In his 2022 speech to the CCP's 20th
National Congress, President Xi Jinping called on China to "speed up
the development of unmanned, intelligent combat capabilities." Military Artificial Intelligence, the People’s Liberation Army, and U.S.-China Strategic Competition | CNAS
China
has a national strategy to develop military AI capabilities, with
"intelligent warfare" as a core component of the People's Liberation
Army's modernization efforts. Researchers have identified key areas
where the PLA is making AI investments, including intelligent and
autonomous vehicles, intelligence and surveillance, predictive
maintenance, information and electronic warfare, simulation and
training, command and control, and automated target recognition. China will continue to advance its military AI | Oxford Analytica
Russia-China AI Cooperation
In early 2025, Russian
President Vladimir Putin ordered state-owned Sberbank to work with China
in researching and developing AI technology. The president of the
Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Research Institute announced plans to
sign an agreement with Russia's Sberbank to promote bilateral
cooperation. Voice of America
Russian
and Chinese officials met in Beijing to discuss military application of
AI, especially in developing autonomous weapons. In December 2024,
Ukraine reported Russia began using AI-powered strike drones with
improved capabilities that can evade air defenses, identify key targets,
and operate offline. Russia turns to China to step up AI race against US
Despite obstacles to its AI
development, the Kremlin will seek to offset challenges through import
substitution programs, investment funds for domestic AI companies, and
workforce development across its national academic establishment. Russia
also will rely on China for AI-related technological and policy
developments. The Role of AI in Russia’s Confrontation with the West | CNAS
At the 2025 NATO Summit in The
Hague, Allies made a commitment to investing 5% of Gross Domestic
Product annually on core defense requirements and defense- and
security-related spending by 2035, with at least 3.5% of GDP allocated
based on the agreed definition of NATO defense expenditure to meet
capability targets. NATO
However,
analysts warn that the 5% target has significant fiscal and operational
implications. Debt levels among many NATO member states are relatively
high, and there are questions about whether NATO's national defense
sectors can absorb a doubling or tripling of military budgets
responsibly. Past rapid increases in military expenditure have been
associated with procurement inefficiencies, overpricing, and misuse. NATO’s new spending target: challenges and risks associated with a political signal | SIPRI
Advanced Systems and Future Warfare
Among the hundreds of
technological systems tested were an underwater drone capable of naval
mine countermeasures, seabed surveys, and reconnaissance, as well as a
robot designed to identify threats and relay sonar data to command
centers ashore.
Allied
Command Transformation identified nine critical emerging and disruptive
technologies that will shape future warfare, ranging from artificial
intelligence and quantum computing to biotechnology and autonomous
systems, and is implementing NATO's "Foster and Protect" strategy to
leverage these technologies. Allied Command Transformation and Innovation: Advancing NATO’s Strategic Edge - NATO's ACT
Competitive Pressure and Future Outlook
Despite the concerns, there are
signs of progress. Warnaar noted that while NATO is not moving as
quickly as desired, various exciting developments are underway and the
pace of advancement is increasing.
James Appathurai, interim
managing director at NATO's Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North
Atlantic (DIANA), emphasized the need to embrace risk and test
technologies hard, stating "Like Elon Musk [needs] exploding rockets, we
need to embrace risk, we need to test and plan for 20 years in the
future." How NATO and allies seek to train defence tech companies on the battlefield | Euronews
The
exercises and broader NATO innovation initiatives underscore the
alliance's recognition that future warfare will likely feature increased
autonomous systems and that maintaining technological superiority
requires sustained investment and rapid innovation cycles. However, the
commander's frank admission that NATO feels "a certain sense of urgency"
suggests that alliance leadership remains acutely aware of the gap
between current capabilities and the undefined but critical threshold of
adequacy in an era of great power competition.
The fundamental challenge
remains: in a competition without a finish line, where adversaries are
simultaneously accelerating their own programs, NATO must not only
innovate but must do so faster than competitors who are themselves
racing ahead. The question is not whether NATO's technological edge is
"good enough" in absolute terms, but whether the alliance can maintain a
relative advantage that continuously outpaces adversary adaptation—a
moving target that, as Warnaar suggests, may never truly be "fast
enough."
Epstein, J. (2025, September 30). NATO racing to field new war tech, not moving fast enough: commander. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com
NATO. (2025, April 9). NATO
Science and Technology report identifies trends shaping the future of
science, defence and security for the next 20 years. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_234507.htm
Time on Target (TOT) artillery
coordination has evolved from a manually synchronized bombardment
technique developed during World War II into a sophisticated,
computer-controlled capability enabled by digital fire control systems,
precision-guided munitions, and tactical data links. This evolution has
fundamentally transformed artillery operations, extending effective
ranges from approximately 24 kilometers to over 70 kilometers while
reducing response times from hours to minutes. However, recent combat
operations in Ukraine have exposed vulnerabilities in GPS-dependent
systems, forcing a reassessment of doctrine and technology resilience in
contested electromagnetic environments.
Modern artillery
coordination has achieved unprecedented precision and speed through
digitization, but the Ukraine conflict exposes critical vulnerabilities
requiring fundamental changes to ensure effectiveness in peer warfare.
GPS-guided munitions that revolutionized artillery accuracy have proven
vulnerable to electronic warfare, with Excalibur success rates
collapsing to 6% under Russian jamming. The U.S. Army's Extended Range
Cannon Artillery program was canceled in 2024 due to unsolvable barrel
wear issues, leaving American artillery outranged by Russian and Chinese
systems. Success requires:
(1) advanced IMU technology enabling
navigation without GPS, (2) resilient fire control systems operating in
contested networks, (3) integration of multiple guidance modes and
precision strike assets, and (4) restored capability to conduct mass
fires using conventional munitions when precision systems fail.
Russia
and China have developed automated fire control achieving 30-second
response times while integrating loitering munitions directly into
artillery networks—capabilities the U.S. must match while maintaining
advantages in network architecture and joint integration.
Historical Origins: World War II Innovation
Development and Doctrine
Time on Target emerged as a
tactical innovation addressing a critical vulnerability discovered
through combat experience: artillery bombardments inflict the majority
of casualties within the first few seconds before enemy forces can seek
cover. Research conducted by the U.S. Army in the 1970s through "Troop
Reaction and Posture Sequencing" tests confirmed that within two seconds
of initial impact, only 29 percent of soldiers remained standing, with
all achieving protective cover within eight seconds. This finding
validated the doctrine that simultaneous impact from multiple firing
units would maximize lethality by preventing defensive reactions.
The technique was initially
developed by the British Army during the North African campaign in late
1941 and early 1942, particularly for counter-battery fire operations.
British officers synchronized their watches using BBC time signals,
avoiding military radio networks that could compromise surprise and
eliminate the need for additional field telephone infrastructure in
desert operations. American forces adopted and refined the technique,
developing sophisticated fire direction procedures at Fort Sill,
Oklahoma during the 1930s under the leadership of Director of Gunnery
Carlos Brewer.
World War II Implementation
During World War II, TOT
demonstrated devastating effectiveness in European operations. A notable
example occurred in November 1944 when 17 Corps battalions and 20
Divisional battalions coordinated fire from almost 600 artillery pieces
supporting the 26th, 35th, and 80th Infantry Divisions. During the
Battle of the Bulge, American artillery units fired over 10,000 rounds
in eight hours at Dom Butgegnbach, enabling the 2nd Infantry Division to
hold the northern shoulder of the German offensive.
The effectiveness of American
artillery, particularly TOT missions, impressed both Allied and Axis
observers. General George Patton stated that "we won the war, and it was
largely won by the artillery." Even German military assessments, while
critical of American infantry tactics, consistently praised American
artillery capabilities. German prisoners attested to the catastrophic
psychological and physical effects of TOT firing, which delivered
overwhelming firepower with no warning before impact.
The Fire Direction Center Revolution
Doctrinal Foundation
The Fire Direction Center (FDC)
concept, developed at Fort Sill during the 1930s, represented a
fundamental shift from terrain-feature-based massing of fires to
precision coordinate-based fire control. This innovation created a
standardized process where forward observers identified targets,
communicated coordinates to the FDC, which then calculated firing data
for gun crews. The FDC processed information from multiple observers and
coordinated fires from multiple batteries, enabling truly synchronized
TOT missions.
The hierarchical FDC structure
extended from battery level through battalion, brigade, and division
echelons. Higher-level FDCs monitor subordinate unit fire missions and
coordinate multiple batteries or battalions in what became known as
"brigade/regimental time on target" missions. The operational principle
of "silence is consent" allowed missions to proceed unless higher
commands issued "cancel the mission" or "check firing" orders, enabling
rapid coordination while maintaining command oversight.
Manual Era Limitations
Despite its revolutionary
nature, manual FDC operations remained labor-intensive and
time-consuming. Calculations for elevation, deflection, propellant
charges, and time-of-flight required trained personnel using firing
tables, plotting boards, and manual computation. Coordinating TOT
missions across multiple battalions demanded precise timing calculations
accounting for different projectile trajectories, barrel wear,
meteorological conditions, and ammunition lot variations.
Computer-Controlled Artillery: The Digital Revolution
AFATDS Development and Capabilities
The Advanced Field Artillery
Tactical Data System (AFATDS) emerged in the 1990s as a network of
computer workstations processing and exchanging information from forward
observers to fire support elements for all fire support assets
including field artillery, mortars, close air support, naval gunfire,
and attack helicopters. The system achieved Initial Operating Test and
Evaluation in 1995 and entered full production with subsequent versions
(AFATDS 96, 97, 98, and 99) incorporating expanded capabilities.
AFATDS provides automatic
processing of fire requests, generation of multiple tactical fire
solutions, monitoring of mission execution, and support for fire
planning creation and distribution. The system integrates with the Army
Battle Command System (ABCS) and was adopted by both Army and Marine
Corps forces. The automated fire control eliminated manual calculation
errors, reduced response times from minutes to seconds, and enabled
coordination of fires across unprecedented numbers of batteries
simultaneously.
Current Modernization: AFATDS AXS
The Army initiated a
comprehensive modernization effort recognizing that AFATDS, built on
1995-era code architecture, requires fundamental restructuring for
future joint all-domain operations. The legacy system's monolithic
"spaghetti code" architecture makes updates cumbersome, sometimes
requiring an entire year to integrate new munitions. Colonel Matt Paul,
Project Manager for Mission Command, noted that AFATDS "was not built
for how we have to share data in the future."
The AFATDS Artillery Execution
Suite (AXS) represents a shift to modular, microservice-based
architecture with three distinct applications: fires support, technical
fire direction, and mission command. This approach enables rapid
updates, reduces hardware footprint, and supports cloud-based
deployment. Usability testing conducted in July 2024 with 10th Mountain
Division Artillery at Fort Drum demonstrated that the new system
operates "10 times faster" than legacy AFATDS while providing more
intuitive interfaces. The Army requested $55 million for fiscal year
2025 to continue development.
Precision-Guided Munitions: Accuracy Revolution
M982 Excalibur Development
The M982 Excalibur
precision-guided 155mm artillery shell, developed jointly by Raytheon
and BAE Systems Bofors, represents a quantum leap in artillery accuracy.
First fielded in Iraq in 2007, Excalibur employs GPS guidance with
inertial navigation backup to achieve a Circular Error Probable (CEP) of
less than two meters regardless of range. The munition features canard
control surfaces and base bleed technology extending ranges to
approximately 40 kilometers from L/39 barrels and 50 kilometers from
L/52 systems.
Excalibur's precision enables
artillery to engage targets in urban environments with minimal
collateral damage and allows fire missions within 50 meters of friendly
forces. The GPS-guided system requires no laser designation or forward
observer terminal guidance, operating as a true "fire-and-forget"
munition. Captain Victor Scharstein, who employed Excalibur during
Operation Arrowhead Ripper in Baquba, stated: "This precision accuracy
has brought artillery back into the close urban fight."
Excalibur-S and Alternative Guidance
The Excalibur-S variant
incorporates semi-active laser terminal guidance, enabling engagement of
moving land and maritime targets with sub-two-meter accuracy. This
development addresses GPS jamming vulnerabilities by providing
alternative terminal guidance. Spain announced procurement of
Excalibur-S in December 2023, with testing on SIAC 155/52 towed
howitzers and M109A5 self-propelled systems.
The M1156 Precision Guidance
Kit (PGK), manufactured by Northrop Grumman, provides a lower-cost
alternative by converting conventional 155mm projectiles into
near-precision munitions. The PGK screws into standard artillery shells
as a GPS-guided fuze, achieving accuracy within 10-50 meters at
significantly lower cost than purpose-built guided projectiles. The Army
awarded a $26.9 million contract in 2025 for continued PGK production,
with completion expected in May 2028.
Ukraine Conflict: The GPS Jamming Challenge
The effectiveness of GPS-guided
munitions has been significantly degraded by Russian electronic warfare
capabilities in Ukraine. By mid-2023, Ukrainian assessments indicated
Excalibur's success rate had fallen to approximately 6 percent due to
sophisticated GPS jamming systems including Krasukha-4 and Zhitel. This
dramatic decline prompted reduced usage and eventual U.S. delivery
suspension.
The Washington Post reported in
May 2024 that Ukrainian military sources confirmed Russian jamming had
eroded battlefield utility of both Excalibur and HIMARS precision
rockets. Russian systems emit powerful radio waves jamming satellite
navigation signals, causing GPS-guided munitions to lose coordinate
locks and miss targets by dozens of meters. This vulnerability has
sparked Pentagon debates about GPS-dependent weapon futures, with
engineers exploring laser guidance, autonomous AI-based targeting, and
anti-jam technologies including Home-on-Jam capabilities for JDAM-ER
weapons scheduled for October 2025 delivery to Ukraine.
Data Links and Network Integration
Link 16/JTIDS Architecture
The Joint Tactical Information
Distribution System (JTIDS), implementing Link 16 protocols, provides
jam-resistant, high-speed digital data exchange operating in the
960-1,215 MHz frequency band. Link 16 employs Time Division Multiple
Access (TDMA) with frequency-hopping spread spectrum waveforms
supporting data rates of 31.6, 57.6, or 115.2 kilobits per second. The
system enables military aircraft, ships, and ground forces to exchange
tactical pictures in near-real time with three-second synchronization
standards.
Link 16 uses J-series binary
data messages grouped into Network Participation Groups (NPGs)
supporting functions including Precise Participant Location and
Identification (NPGs 5 and 6), and Electronic Warfare Coordination (NPG
10). The U.S. Army currently uses NPGs 15, 16, and 25 for ground force
operations. The system provides common situational awareness across
joint forces, though full Army integration remains incomplete compared
to Air Force and Navy implementations.
Fire Support Integration Challenges
Despite Link 16's sophisticated
capabilities, artillery integration faces persistent challenges. AFATDS
data outputs in proprietary formats limiting collaborative data sharing
across joint networks. Mark Kitz, Program Executive Office for Command,
Control, Communications-Tactical, stated: "Today, that data comes out
of AFATDS in a very proprietary way. We can't collaborate that way."
The modernization strategy
emphasizes open architecture standards enabling AFATDS data to flow
seamlessly through Command Post Computing Environment (CP CE) and
integrate with Link 16 networks. Cloud-based AFATDS deployment,
demonstrated by I Corps, allows access through web browsers and Android
Team Awareness Kit devices, reducing hardware requirements while
expanding access. This transformation addresses the fundamental
requirement that future fires systems must support multi-domain
operations with rapid sensor-to-shooter integration.
Extended Range Systems: The ERCA Challenge
M1299 Development and Cancellation
The Extended Range Cannon
Artillery (ERCA) program aimed to extend M109 Paladin effective range by
mounting a 58-caliber, 9.1-meter gun tube (XM907) on the M109A7
chassis. Combined with XM1113 rocket-assisted projectiles, the system
successfully hit targets at 70 kilometers during December 2020 testing
at Yuma Proving Ground—more than twice the standard M109A7 range of 38
kilometers.
Despite promising test results,
the Army canceled ERCA in March 2024 after concluding the prototyping
phase. Assistant Secretary Doug Bush announced: "We concluded the
prototyping activity last fall. Unfortunately, [it was] not successful
enough to go straight into production." The primary technical challenge
involved excessive barrel wear from the extended tube length and
high-pressure propellant charges. The 58-caliber barrel's increased
length resulted in accelerated erosion, reducing barrel life below
operational requirements despite achieving range objectives.
Alternative Approaches and Future Directions
Following ERCA cancellation,
the Army initiated an "exhaustive" tactical fires study revalidating
extended-range requirements while exploring existing domestic and
international solutions. The service requested $55 million in fiscal
year 2025 to evaluate mature systems from industry. This shift
represents pragmatic acknowledgment that developmental systems face
longer timelines than operational needs permit.
The Army continues developing
munitions technologies including the XM1113 rocket-assisted projectile
and XM659 stub charge, which extend ranges of existing systems while
maintaining compatibility across the artillery fleet. European systems
including Germany's PzH 2000, Sweden's Archer, and France's Caesar
provide 52-caliber options achieving 40+ kilometer ranges with
conventional ammunition, offering potential models or acquisition
targets for U.S. requirements.
Counter-Battery Operations
Radar Systems
Modern counter-battery
operations rely on sophisticated target acquisition radars detecting
enemy firing positions through projectile trajectory tracking. The
AN/TPQ-36 Firefinder and AN/TPQ-53 (EQ-36) systems, manufactured by
Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, provide automated target location
and transmit firing data directly to AFATDS for immediate counter-fire
missions.
The AN/TPQ-36 provides
short-range detection optimized for mortars and artillery up to
approximately 18 kilometers, while the AN/TPQ-53 extends detection
ranges to 60+ kilometers for rocket and artillery systems. These radars
integrate with fire control networks enabling "sensor-to-shooter" times
measured in seconds rather than minutes. The U.S. delivered multiple
AN/TPQ-36 systems to Ukraine beginning in 2015, though Russian
electronic warfare and precision fires have successfully targeted
numerous counter-battery radars throughout the conflict.
Electronic Warfare Environment
The Ukraine conflict
demonstrates unprecedented electronic warfare intensity affecting all
artillery operations. Russian systems including Leer-3 employ unmanned
aerial vehicles to jam cellular networks used by Ukrainian forces, track
movements, and designate artillery targets. The Krasukha-4 jams radar
systems and communication links at ranges exceeding 300 kilometers,
while smaller tactical jammers disrupt GPS, drone control, and tactical
radio communications across the battlefield.
Ukrainian forces have responded
with indigenous electronic warfare development through private
companies supported by the Brave1 platform. Systems including Bukovel,
Pokrova, and Piranha provide drone intercept, GPS spoofing, and
communications jamming capabilities. Ukrainian electronic warfare units
neutralized approximately 8,000 Russian drones during one week in July
2024, demonstrating the effectiveness of adaptive defensive measures.
However, the electronic warfare environment remains highly contested,
with both sides continuously developing countermeasures.
Advanced Inertial Measurement Units: Resilience Against GPS Denial
MEMS Technology Evolution
The vulnerability of GPS-guided
munitions to electronic warfare has accelerated development of advanced
Inertial Measurement Units (IMUs) as critical backup navigation
systems. Modern tactical-grade MEMS (Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems)
IMUs incorporate three-axis gyroscopes and accelerometers providing
position, navigation, and timing data independent of external satellite
signals. Unlike GPS receivers, IMUs measure angular velocity and linear
acceleration directly, enabling dead reckoning navigation when satellite
signals are jammed or spoofed.
Collins Aerospace and other
defense contractors are developing next-generation IMUs specifically
designed for the extreme conditions encountered by artillery
projectiles. These "gun-hard" IMUs must survive firing accelerations
exceeding 15,000 G-forces while maintaining tactical-grade accuracy
throughout flight. The miniaturization of IMU technology has enabled
integration into 155mm artillery shells that previously could only
accommodate GPS receivers, transforming conventional munitions into
guided weapons even in GPS-denied environments.
Hybrid Navigation Architecture
Contemporary precision
munitions increasingly employ hybrid navigation combining GPS, IMU, and
alternative guidance modes. The M982 Excalibur integrates GPS with
inertial navigation as backup, though current IMU accuracy degrades
significantly over the projectile's flight time without GPS updates.
Advanced systems under development fuse IMU data with terrain contour
matching, celestial navigation, or magnetic field referencing to
maintain accuracy throughout extended trajectories.
The most promising development
involves coupling high-performance Ring Laser Gyroscope (RLG) or Fiber
Optic Gyroscope (FOG) IMUs with GPS receivers featuring anti-jam
technology. When GPS signals are contested but not completely denied,
these systems can filter jamming interference while using IMU data to
validate satellite inputs, rejecting spoofed signals that would mislead
purely GPS-dependent systems. This redundancy architecture ensures
munitions can complete missions even when adversaries achieve partial
success in electronic warfare.
Operational Impact
The improved accuracy and
jamming resistance of modern IMUs directly address the vulnerability
exposed in Ukraine where Excalibur success rates collapsed under Russian
electronic warfare. Artillery shells equipped with tactical-grade IMUs
can maintain Circular Error Probable under 50 meters throughout
trajectories exceeding 40 kilometers, even without GPS updates. While
this represents reduced precision compared to GPS-guided flight (2-meter
CEP), it provides sufficient accuracy for most tactical targets while
denying adversaries the ability to completely neutralize precision fires
through jamming.
The integration of advanced
IMUs also enables new artillery concepts including autonomous terminal
guidance where projectiles use IMU-derived position estimates combined
with seeker sensors to identify and engage moving targets. Ukrainian
forces have pioneered AI-guided drones that use IMU navigation with
terminal visual targeting, maintaining effectiveness despite widespread
jamming. These same principles apply to next-generation artillery
munitions that will employ IMU navigation to GPS-denied terminal areas,
then activate millimeter-wave radar or imaging infrared seekers for
final targeting, creating truly all-weather, jam-resistant precision
fires.
International Artillery Coordination: Russia and China
Russian Reconnaissance-Fire System
The Russian Armed Forces have
implemented comprehensive modernization of artillery coordination
through the Reconnaissance-Fire System (Razvedyvatel'no-Ognevoy
Sistema—ROS), representing a technological transformation from
Soviet-era manual fire control. The ROS integrates reconnaissance assets
including UAVs, counter-battery radars, and forward observer stations
with automated fire direction through digital networks coordinated by
Information Control Subsystems (ISBU). This architecture enables
near-real-time targeting where intelligence feeds directly into fire
control computers that calculate firing solutions and transmit commands
to batteries.
Russian automated artillery
fire control systems including the 1V181, 1V198, and Planshet-A provide
comprehensive digital coordination for battalion-level operations. The
Planshet-A system completes the command cycle for an artillery battery
in 30 seconds and coordinates fire for an entire battalion within an
additional 20 seconds. These systems automatically process
reconnaissance data from multiple sources, calculate firing data
accounting for meteorological conditions, and distribute mission orders
to individual guns through secure radio links operating up to 7
kilometers. According to Rostec announcements, modern fire control
systems increase accuracy by 25-30 percent while reducing fire
preparation time by one-half to two-thirds compared to manual methods.
The Malakhit automated fire
control station exemplifies Russian forward observer technology,
integrating day/thermal imaging, laser rangefinder/designator, GPS
positioning, and firing data computers in tripod-mounted units. Upon
target detection, Malakhit derives target coordinates and calculates
firing data deliverable to batteries within 15 seconds. Integration with
Orlan-30 UAVs enables laser designation for Krasnopol precision-guided
152mm projectiles, providing combined reconnaissance-strike capability
at ranges exceeding 20 kilometers.
Russian Counter-Battery Operations
Russian counter-battery
doctrine relies on multi-layered detection and strike systems integrated
through battalion-level fire control networks. The Zoopark-1 (1L219M)
counter-battery radar detects firing positions of artillery, rockets,
and mortars, transmitting target coordinates directly to Planshet-A fire
control systems. Upon detection, Russian forces employ rapid response
protocols utilizing either massed artillery fires or precision strikes
with Krasnopol guided projectiles or Lancet loitering munitions.
Operational analysis from
Ukraine indicates Russian forces have shifted from massed detection
systems to more distributed reconnaissance using smaller UAVs combined
with precision strike assets. The Lancet loitering munition has become
central to Russian counter-battery operations, with over 2,722
documented uses by January 2025. Lancet's ability to loiter over
Ukrainian lines and intercept howitzers during displacement movements
makes it highly effective against shoot-and-scoot tactics. When
counter-battery radars detect Ukrainian firing positions, coordinates
enter the fire control network enabling Lancet launch within minutes
while artillery prepares conventional fires as backup.
Chinese Artillery Integration and Automation
The People's Liberation Army
Ground Force (PLAGF) has modernized artillery through comprehensive
digitization emphasizing network-centric operations and automated fire
control. The PCL-181 truck-mounted 155mm howitzer exemplifies Chinese
integration philosophy, featuring automatic fire control systems that
calculate trajectories and automatically lay guns based on operator
input of target coordinates. The semi-automatic ammunition handling
system and 52-caliber barrel provide 40-kilometer range with
conventional ammunition and 72 kilometers with extended-range
projectiles. Chinese systems also fire laser-guided munitions enabling
all-weather precision strikes.
The PLZ-05 self-propelled
howitzer incorporates fully automatic loading systems providing 8 rounds
per minute sustained fire rate and burst capability of 4 rounds per 15
seconds. Chinese forces have demonstrated emphasis on rapid displacement
following engagements, with PLZ-05's mobility and automated systems
enabling shoot-and-scoot operations reducing vulnerability to
counter-battery fires. Recent upgrades observed during 2024 exercises
include anti-drone protection systems including mesh screens and
electronic jamming, reflecting Ukrainian conflict lessons about
artillery vulnerability to small UAV attacks.
Chinese artillery doctrine
emphasizes integration within the broader Command, Control,
Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance
(C4ISR) network enabling coordinated fires across multiple domains. The
Information Support Force (ISF), established in 2024, coordinates
military network management and electromagnetic spectrum operations
supporting artillery targeting and communications. Chinese systems
increasingly incorporate autonomous capabilities with unmanned ground
vehicles deployed alongside conventional artillery to provide
reconnaissance, ammunition resupply, and potentially autonomous firing
capabilities in high-threat environments.
Comparative Analysis: Fire Control Philosophy
Russian and Chinese artillery
automation follows distinct yet parallel development paths reflecting
different operational priorities. Russian systems emphasize robust
operation in contested electromagnetic environments with redundant
communication modes and demonstrated effectiveness under actual combat
conditions in Ukraine. The integration of loitering munitions with
conventional artillery creates layered strike capability where precision
and massed fires complement each other. However, Russian systems face
challenges from persistent Ukrainian electronic warfare and precision
strikes that have destroyed numerous high-value assets including
counter-battery radars and fire control vehicles.
Chinese systems reflect
peacetime development emphasizing technological sophistication and
network integration rather than combat-proven resilience. The PLAGF's
emphasis on informatization and intelligentization creates highly
capable systems on paper, though operational effectiveness remains
largely unproven in peer conflict. China's 2025 military parade
showcased integration of artificial intelligence, autonomous systems,
and advanced networking across artillery platforms, suggesting future
Chinese artillery may achieve higher levels of automation than either
Russian or Western systems. However, questions persist about performance
degradation under electronic warfare conditions comparable to those in
Ukraine.
Both nations have achieved
capabilities enabling Time on Target missions comparable to Western
systems, with automated fire control coordinating multiple batteries to
achieve simultaneous impact. Russian forces regularly conduct
battalion-level TOT missions in Ukraine, while Chinese systems
theoretically enable brigade-level coordination through networked fire
control. The key distinction from Western systems involves greater
integration of precision strike assets (loitering munitions, tactical
ballistic missiles) directly into artillery fire control networks,
creating more comprehensive fires architecture than traditional
artillery-centric Western approaches.
Contemporary Operations and Future Trends
Lessons from Ukraine
The ongoing conflict in Ukraine
provides critical insights into artillery operations in peer-conflict
scenarios. Ukrainian forces achieved 90 percent hit rates within five
minutes of target identification when artillery coordinates with drone
reconnaissance—compared to 60 percent without drone support. However,
ammunition expenditure rates far exceed peacetime production
capabilities, with Russian forces maintaining approximately 10:1 artillery advantage through sustained industrial mobilization.
Electronic warfare has emerged
as the decisive factor in artillery effectiveness. Beyond GPS jamming
affecting precision munitions, Russian forces employ comprehensive
spectrum denial targeting communications, targeting systems, and command
networks. Ukrainian forces adapted by reverting to wire communications,
employing runners, and developing AI-guided drones maintaining target
lock despite jamming. These adaptations demonstrate the requirement for
artillery forces to operate effectively in contested electromagnetic
environments without continuous digital connectivity.
Multi-Domain Integration
Future artillery operations
emphasize multi-domain integration where fires synchronize with air,
cyber, and electronic warfare effects through common operational
pictures. The Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS) and Joint
All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) initiatives aim to connect
sensors and shooters across services and domains, enabling artillery to
receive targeting from space-based sensors, airborne ISR platforms, and
cyber operations.
This integration enables "any
sensor, any shooter" operations where the optimal fire support asset
engages each target regardless of command relationships. However,
achieving this vision requires overcoming interoperability challenges,
ensuring communications resilience in denied environments, and
developing doctrine for decentralized execution when networks fail. The
Ukraine experience suggests that while networked operations provide
decisive advantages, forces must maintain capability to operate in
degraded communications environments using traditional fire control
methods.
Artificial Intelligence and Autonomy
Emerging technologies including
artificial intelligence promise further transformation of artillery
operations. AI-enabled systems can process multiple sensor inputs,
predict target movements, optimize firing solutions accounting for
complex variables, and coordinate fires across distributed units without
centralized control. Ukrainian forces pioneered AI-guided drones that
lock onto targets during final approach phases, maintaining
effectiveness despite jamming.
The Army explores AI
applications for predictive maintenance, automated target recognition,
and fire mission planning. However, implementation faces challenges
including adversary AI countermeasures, reliability in contested
environments, and command authority questions for autonomous lethal
systems. The fundamental requirement remains human decision-making for
weapons release while leveraging AI to compress decision timelines and
optimize effectiveness.
Conclusion
Time on Target artillery
coordination has evolved from a WWII technique requiring synchronized
watches and manual calculations into a sophisticated system-of-systems
integrating precision munitions, automated fire control, and tactical
data networks. Computer-controlled systems like AFATDS reduce response
times from hours to seconds while coordinating fires from dozens of
batteries simultaneously. Precision-guided munitions extend accurate
engagement ranges beyond 50 kilometers while minimizing collateral
damage.
However, the Ukraine conflict
exposes critical vulnerabilities in GPS-dependent systems and highlights
the enduring importance of artillery fundamentals including massed
fires, rapid displacement, and operations in contested electromagnetic
environments. The cancellation of ERCA demonstrates technical challenges
in extending ranges while the degradation of Excalibur effectiveness
reveals the vulnerability of satellite-dependent systems.
Future artillery effectiveness
requires balancing technological sophistication with resilience,
ensuring systems remain effective when networks fail and precision
guidance becomes unavailable. The enduring principles of artillery—mass,
surprise, and violence of action—remain valid even as the methods for
achieving them transform through digital fire control, network
integration, and precision munitions. The challenge for military
planners involves maintaining these capabilities across the full
spectrum from permissive to highly contested operational environments.